{"title":"人类实验研究中暴露于射频电磁场对认知能力的影响：系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.envint.2024.108899","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The objective of this review is to evaluate the associations between short-term exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and cognitive performance in human experimental studies.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Online databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and EMF-Portal) were searched for studies that evaluated effects of exposure to RF-EMF on seven domains of cognitive performance in human experimental studies. The assessment of study quality was based on the Risk of Bias (RoB) tool developed by the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT). Random effects <em>meta</em>-analyses of Hedges’s g were conducted separately for accuracy- and speed-related performance measures of various cognitive domains, for which data from at least two studies were available. Finally, the certainty of evidence for each identified outcome was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>57,543 records were identified and 76 studies (80 reports) met the inclusion criteria. The included 76 studies with 3846 participants, consisting of humans of different age, sex and health status from 19 countries, were conducted between 1989 and 2021. Quantitative data from 50 studies (52 reports) with 2433 participants were included into the <em>meta</em>-analyses. These studies were performed in 15 countries between 2001 and 2021. The majority of the included studies used head exposure with GSM 900 uplink.</p><p>None of the <em>meta</em>-analyses observed a statistically significant effect of RF-EMF exposure compared to sham on cognitive performance as measured by the confidence interval surrounding the Hedges’s g or the significance of the z-statistic.</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Attention – Attentional Capacity</em> RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.024, 95 % CI [−0.10; 0.15], I<sup>2</sup> = 28 %, 473 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Attention – Concentration / Focused Attention</em> RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g 0.005, 95 % CI [−0.17; 0.18], I<sup>2</sup> = 7 %, 132 participants) and probably results in little to no difference in accuracy; it does not reduce accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.097, 95 % CI [−0.05; 0.24], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 217 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Attention – Vigilance</em> RF-EMF exposure probably results in little to no difference in speed and does not reduce speed (Hedges’s g 0.118, 95 % CI [−0.04; 0.28], I<sup>2</sup> = 41 %, 247 participants) and results in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.042, 95 % CI, [−0.09; 0.18], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 199 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Attention – Selective Attention</em> RF-EMF exposure probably results in little to no difference in speed and does not reduce speed (Hedges’s g 0.080, 95 % CI [−0.09; 0.25], I<sup>2</sup> = 63 %, 452 participants); it may result in little to no difference in accuracy, but it probably does not reduce accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.178, 95 % CI [−0.02; 0.38], I<sup>2</sup> = 68 %, 480 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Attention – Divided Attention</em> RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g −0.010, 95 % CI [−0.14; 0.12], I<sup>2</sup> = 5 %, 307 participants) and may result in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g −0.089, 95 % CI [−0.35; 0.18], I<sup>2</sup> = 53 %, 167 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Processing Speed − Simple Reaction Time Task</em> RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g 0.069, 95 % CI [−0.02; +0.16], I<sup>2</sup> = 29 %, 820 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Processing Speed – 2-Choice Reaction Time Task</em> RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g −0.023, 95 % CI [−0.13; 0.08], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 401 participants), and may result in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g −0.063, 95 % CI [−0.38; 0.25], I<sup>2</sup> = 63 %, 117 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Processing Speed – >2-Choice Reaction Time Task</em> RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g −0.054, 95 % CI [−0.14; 0.03], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 544 participants) and probably results in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g −0.129, 95 % CI [−0.30; 0.04], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 131 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Processing Speed – Other Tasks</em> RF-EMF exposure probably results in little to no difference in speed and does not reduce speed (Hedges’s g 0.067, 95 % CI [−0.12; 0.26], I<sup>2</sup> = 38 %, 249 participants); it results in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.036, 95 % CI [−0.08; 0.15], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 354 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Working Memory – n-back Task</em> (0–3-back) we found Hedges’s g ranging from −0.090, 95 % CI [−0.18; 0.01] to 0.060, 95 % CI [−0.06; 0.18], all I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 237 to 474 participants, and conclude that RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in both speed and accuracy.</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Working Memory – Mental Tracking</em> RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g −0.047, 95 % [CI −0.15; 0.05], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 438 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Perception</em>, subclass <em>Visual and Auditory Perception</em> RF-EMF exposure may result in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g −0.015, 95 % CI [−0.23; 0.195], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 84 participants) and probably results in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.035, 95 % CI [−0.13; 0.199], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 137 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Memory</em>, subclass <em>Verbal and Visual Memory</em> RF-EMF exposure probably results in little to no difference in speed and does not reduce speed (Hedges’s g 0.042, 95 % CI [−0.15; 0.23], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 102 participants); it may result in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g −0.087, 95 % CI [−0.38; 0.20], I<sup>2</sup> = 85 %, 625 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Verbal Functions and Language Skills</em>, subclass <em>Verbal Expression</em>, a <em>meta</em>-analysis was not possible because one of the two included studies did not provide numerical values. Results of both studies did not indicate statistically significant effects of RF-EMF exposure on both speed and accuracy.</p><p>For the domain <em>Construction and Motor Performance</em>, subclass <em>Motor Skills</em> RF-EMF exposure may reduce speed, but the evidence is very uncertain (Hedges’s g −0.919, 95 % CI [−3.09; 1.26], I<sup>2</sup> = 96 %, 42 participants); it probably results in little to no difference in accuracy and does not reduce accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.228, 95 % CI [−0.01; 0.46], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 109 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Concept Formation and Reasoning</em>, subclass <em>Reasoning</em> RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g 0.010, 95 % CI [−0.11; 0.13], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 263 participants) and probably results in little to no difference in accuracy and does not reduce accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.051, 95 % CI [−0.14; 0.25], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 100 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Concept Formation and Reasoning</em>, subclass <em>Mathematical Procedures</em> RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g 0.033, 95 % CI [−0.12; 0.18], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 168 participants) and may result in little to no difference in accuracy but probably does not reduce accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.232, 95 % CI [−0.12; +0.59], I<sup>2</sup> = 86 %, 253 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Executive Functions</em> there were no studies.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Overall, the results from all domains and subclasses across their speed- and accuracy-related outcome measures according to GRADE provide high to low certainty of evidence that short-term RF-EMF exposure does not reduce cognitive performance in human experimental studies. For 16 out of 35 subdomains some uncertainty remains, because of limitations in the study quality, inconsistency in the results or imprecision of the combined effect size estimate. Future research should focus on construction and motor performance, elderly, and consideration of both sexes.</p></div><div><h3>Other</h3><p>This review was partially funded by the WHO radioprotection programme.</p><p>The protocol for this review was registered in Prospero reg. no. CRD42021236168 and published in Environment International (<span><span>Pophof et al. 2021</span></span>).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":308,"journal":{"name":"Environment International","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024004859/pdfft?md5=f287444c8656ce9936712ae300be0382&pid=1-s2.0-S0160412024004859-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on cognitive performance in human experimental studies: Systematic review and meta-analyses\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envint.2024.108899\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The objective of this review is to evaluate the associations between short-term exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and cognitive performance in human experimental studies.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Online databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and EMF-Portal) were searched for studies that evaluated effects of exposure to RF-EMF on seven domains of cognitive performance in human experimental studies. The assessment of study quality was based on the Risk of Bias (RoB) tool developed by the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT). Random effects <em>meta</em>-analyses of Hedges’s g were conducted separately for accuracy- and speed-related performance measures of various cognitive domains, for which data from at least two studies were available. Finally, the certainty of evidence for each identified outcome was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>57,543 records were identified and 76 studies (80 reports) met the inclusion criteria. The included 76 studies with 3846 participants, consisting of humans of different age, sex and health status from 19 countries, were conducted between 1989 and 2021. Quantitative data from 50 studies (52 reports) with 2433 participants were included into the <em>meta</em>-analyses. These studies were performed in 15 countries between 2001 and 2021. The majority of the included studies used head exposure with GSM 900 uplink.</p><p>None of the <em>meta</em>-analyses observed a statistically significant effect of RF-EMF exposure compared to sham on cognitive performance as measured by the confidence interval surrounding the Hedges’s g or the significance of the z-statistic.</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Attention – Attentional Capacity</em> RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.024, 95 % CI [−0.10; 0.15], I<sup>2</sup> = 28 %, 473 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Attention – Concentration / Focused Attention</em> RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g 0.005, 95 % CI [−0.17; 0.18], I<sup>2</sup> = 7 %, 132 participants) and probably results in little to no difference in accuracy; it does not reduce accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.097, 95 % CI [−0.05; 0.24], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 217 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Attention – Vigilance</em> RF-EMF exposure probably results in little to no difference in speed and does not reduce speed (Hedges’s g 0.118, 95 % CI [−0.04; 0.28], I<sup>2</sup> = 41 %, 247 participants) and results in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.042, 95 % CI, [−0.09; 0.18], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 199 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Attention – Selective Attention</em> RF-EMF exposure probably results in little to no difference in speed and does not reduce speed (Hedges’s g 0.080, 95 % CI [−0.09; 0.25], I<sup>2</sup> = 63 %, 452 participants); it may result in little to no difference in accuracy, but it probably does not reduce accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.178, 95 % CI [−0.02; 0.38], I<sup>2</sup> = 68 %, 480 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Attention – Divided Attention</em> RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g −0.010, 95 % CI [−0.14; 0.12], I<sup>2</sup> = 5 %, 307 participants) and may result in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g −0.089, 95 % CI [−0.35; 0.18], I<sup>2</sup> = 53 %, 167 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Processing Speed − Simple Reaction Time Task</em> RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g 0.069, 95 % CI [−0.02; +0.16], I<sup>2</sup> = 29 %, 820 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Processing Speed – 2-Choice Reaction Time Task</em> RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g −0.023, 95 % CI [−0.13; 0.08], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 401 participants), and may result in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g −0.063, 95 % CI [−0.38; 0.25], I<sup>2</sup> = 63 %, 117 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Processing Speed – >2-Choice Reaction Time Task</em> RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g −0.054, 95 % CI [−0.14; 0.03], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 544 participants) and probably results in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g −0.129, 95 % CI [−0.30; 0.04], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 131 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Processing Speed – Other Tasks</em> RF-EMF exposure probably results in little to no difference in speed and does not reduce speed (Hedges’s g 0.067, 95 % CI [−0.12; 0.26], I<sup>2</sup> = 38 %, 249 participants); it results in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.036, 95 % CI [−0.08; 0.15], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 354 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Working Memory – n-back Task</em> (0–3-back) we found Hedges’s g ranging from −0.090, 95 % CI [−0.18; 0.01] to 0.060, 95 % CI [−0.06; 0.18], all I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 237 to 474 participants, and conclude that RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in both speed and accuracy.</p><p>For the domain <em>Orientation and Attention</em>, subclass <em>Working Memory – Mental Tracking</em> RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g −0.047, 95 % [CI −0.15; 0.05], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 438 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Perception</em>, subclass <em>Visual and Auditory Perception</em> RF-EMF exposure may result in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g −0.015, 95 % CI [−0.23; 0.195], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 84 participants) and probably results in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.035, 95 % CI [−0.13; 0.199], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 137 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Memory</em>, subclass <em>Verbal and Visual Memory</em> RF-EMF exposure probably results in little to no difference in speed and does not reduce speed (Hedges’s g 0.042, 95 % CI [−0.15; 0.23], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 102 participants); it may result in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g −0.087, 95 % CI [−0.38; 0.20], I<sup>2</sup> = 85 %, 625 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Verbal Functions and Language Skills</em>, subclass <em>Verbal Expression</em>, a <em>meta</em>-analysis was not possible because one of the two included studies did not provide numerical values. Results of both studies did not indicate statistically significant effects of RF-EMF exposure on both speed and accuracy.</p><p>For the domain <em>Construction and Motor Performance</em>, subclass <em>Motor Skills</em> RF-EMF exposure may reduce speed, but the evidence is very uncertain (Hedges’s g −0.919, 95 % CI [−3.09; 1.26], I<sup>2</sup> = 96 %, 42 participants); it probably results in little to no difference in accuracy and does not reduce accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.228, 95 % CI [−0.01; 0.46], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 109 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Concept Formation and Reasoning</em>, subclass <em>Reasoning</em> RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g 0.010, 95 % CI [−0.11; 0.13], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 263 participants) and probably results in little to no difference in accuracy and does not reduce accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.051, 95 % CI [−0.14; 0.25], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 100 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Concept Formation and Reasoning</em>, subclass <em>Mathematical Procedures</em> RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g 0.033, 95 % CI [−0.12; 0.18], I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %, 168 participants) and may result in little to no difference in accuracy but probably does not reduce accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.232, 95 % CI [−0.12; +0.59], I<sup>2</sup> = 86 %, 253 participants).</p><p>For the domain <em>Executive Functions</em> there were no studies.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Overall, the results from all domains and subclasses across their speed- and accuracy-related outcome measures according to GRADE provide high to low certainty of evidence that short-term RF-EMF exposure does not reduce cognitive performance in human experimental studies. For 16 out of 35 subdomains some uncertainty remains, because of limitations in the study quality, inconsistency in the results or imprecision of the combined effect size estimate. Future research should focus on construction and motor performance, elderly, and consideration of both sexes.</p></div><div><h3>Other</h3><p>This review was partially funded by the WHO radioprotection programme.</p><p>The protocol for this review was registered in Prospero reg. no. CRD42021236168 and published in Environment International (<span><span>Pophof et al. 2021</span></span>).</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environment International\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024004859/pdfft?md5=f287444c8656ce9936712ae300be0382&pid=1-s2.0-S0160412024004859-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environment International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024004859\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment International","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024004859","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
对于定向和注意领域的工作记忆-心理跟踪子类，暴露于射频-电磁场对准确性几乎没有影响（Hedges's g -0.047，95 % [CI -0.15；0.05]，I2 = 0 %，438 名参与者）。对于感知领域的视觉和听觉感知子类，射频-电磁场暴露可能导致速度几乎没有差异（Hedges's g -0.015，95 % CI [-0.23; 0.195]，I2 = 0 %，84 名参与者），并可能导致准确性几乎没有差异（Hedges's g 0.035，95 % CI [-0.13; 0.199]，I2 = 0 %，137 名参与者）。对于记忆领域的言语和视觉记忆子类，射频-电磁场暴露可能几乎不会导致速度上的差异，也不会降低速度（Hedges's g 0.042，95 % CI [-0.15; 0.23]，I2 = 0 %，137 名参与者）。对于 "言语功能和语言技能 "领域的 "言语表达 "子类，由于纳入的两项研究中有一项没有提供数值，因此无法进行荟萃分析。这两项研究的结果均未表明暴露于射频电磁场对速度和准确性有统计学意义的影响。对于构造和运动表现领域的运动技能子类，暴露于射频电磁场可能会降低速度，但证据非常不确定（Hedges's g -0.919，95 % CI [-3.09; 1.26]，I2 = 96 %，42 名参与者）；暴露于射频电磁场可能导致准确性几乎没有差异，也不会降低准确性（Hedges's g 0.对于概念形成和推理领域的推理子类，射频-电磁场暴露几乎不会导致速度上的差异（Hedges's g 0.010, 95 % CI [-0.11; 0.13], I2 = 0 %, 263 名参与者），也可能几乎不会导致准确性上的差异，也不会降低准确性（Hedges's g 0.对于 "概念形成与推理 "领域的 "数学程序 "子类，射频-电磁场暴露几乎不会导致速度上的差异（Hedges's g 0.033，95 % CI [-0.12; 0.18]，I2 = 0 %，168 名参与者），也可能不会导致准确性上的差异，但可能不会降低准确性（Hedges's g 0.讨论总体而言，根据 GRADE，所有领域和子类中与速度和准确性相关的结果测量结果都提供了高度到低度确定性的证据，表明在人类实验研究中，短期暴露于射频电磁场不会降低认知能力。在 35 个子领域中，有 16 个子领域仍存在一定的不确定性，原因是研究质量有限、结果不一致或综合效应大小估计不精确。未来的研究应重点关注建筑和运动表现、老年人以及男女两性的情况。其他本综述得到了世界卫生组织辐射防护计划的部分资助。本综述的方案已在 Prospero 注册，注册号为 CRD42021236168，并发表在《国际环境》（Pophof 等，2021 年）上。
The effect of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on cognitive performance in human experimental studies: Systematic review and meta-analyses
Background
The objective of this review is to evaluate the associations between short-term exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and cognitive performance in human experimental studies.
Methods
Online databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and EMF-Portal) were searched for studies that evaluated effects of exposure to RF-EMF on seven domains of cognitive performance in human experimental studies. The assessment of study quality was based on the Risk of Bias (RoB) tool developed by the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT). Random effects meta-analyses of Hedges’s g were conducted separately for accuracy- and speed-related performance measures of various cognitive domains, for which data from at least two studies were available. Finally, the certainty of evidence for each identified outcome was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).
Results
57,543 records were identified and 76 studies (80 reports) met the inclusion criteria. The included 76 studies with 3846 participants, consisting of humans of different age, sex and health status from 19 countries, were conducted between 1989 and 2021. Quantitative data from 50 studies (52 reports) with 2433 participants were included into the meta-analyses. These studies were performed in 15 countries between 2001 and 2021. The majority of the included studies used head exposure with GSM 900 uplink.
None of the meta-analyses observed a statistically significant effect of RF-EMF exposure compared to sham on cognitive performance as measured by the confidence interval surrounding the Hedges’s g or the significance of the z-statistic.
For the domain Orientation and Attention, subclass Attention – Attentional Capacity RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.024, 95 % CI [−0.10; 0.15], I2 = 28 %, 473 participants).
For the domain Orientation and Attention, subclass Attention – Concentration / Focused Attention RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g 0.005, 95 % CI [−0.17; 0.18], I2 = 7 %, 132 participants) and probably results in little to no difference in accuracy; it does not reduce accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.097, 95 % CI [−0.05; 0.24], I2 = 0 %, 217 participants).
For the domain Orientation and Attention, subclass Attention – Vigilance RF-EMF exposure probably results in little to no difference in speed and does not reduce speed (Hedges’s g 0.118, 95 % CI [−0.04; 0.28], I2 = 41 %, 247 participants) and results in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.042, 95 % CI, [−0.09; 0.18], I2 = 0 %, 199 participants).
For the domain Orientation and Attention, subclass Attention – Selective Attention RF-EMF exposure probably results in little to no difference in speed and does not reduce speed (Hedges’s g 0.080, 95 % CI [−0.09; 0.25], I2 = 63 %, 452 participants); it may result in little to no difference in accuracy, but it probably does not reduce accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.178, 95 % CI [−0.02; 0.38], I2 = 68 %, 480 participants).
For the domain Orientation and Attention, subclass Attention – Divided Attention RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g −0.010, 95 % CI [−0.14; 0.12], I2 = 5 %, 307 participants) and may result in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g −0.089, 95 % CI [−0.35; 0.18], I2 = 53 %, 167 participants).
For the domain Orientation and Attention, subclass Processing Speed − Simple Reaction Time Task RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g 0.069, 95 % CI [−0.02; +0.16], I2 = 29 %, 820 participants).
For the domain Orientation and Attention, subclass Processing Speed – 2-Choice Reaction Time Task RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g −0.023, 95 % CI [−0.13; 0.08], I2 = 0 %, 401 participants), and may result in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g −0.063, 95 % CI [−0.38; 0.25], I2 = 63 %, 117 participants).
For the domain Orientation and Attention, subclass Processing Speed – >2-Choice Reaction Time Task RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g −0.054, 95 % CI [−0.14; 0.03], I2 = 0 %, 544 participants) and probably results in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g −0.129, 95 % CI [−0.30; 0.04], I2 = 0 %, 131 participants).
For the domain Orientation and Attention, subclass Processing Speed – Other Tasks RF-EMF exposure probably results in little to no difference in speed and does not reduce speed (Hedges’s g 0.067, 95 % CI [−0.12; 0.26], I2 = 38 %, 249 participants); it results in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.036, 95 % CI [−0.08; 0.15], I2 = 0 %, 354 participants).
For the domain Orientation and Attention, subclass Working Memory – n-back Task (0–3-back) we found Hedges’s g ranging from −0.090, 95 % CI [−0.18; 0.01] to 0.060, 95 % CI [−0.06; 0.18], all I2 = 0 %, 237 to 474 participants, and conclude that RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in both speed and accuracy.
For the domain Orientation and Attention, subclass Working Memory – Mental Tracking RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g −0.047, 95 % [CI −0.15; 0.05], I2 = 0 %, 438 participants).
For the domain Perception, subclass Visual and Auditory Perception RF-EMF exposure may result in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g −0.015, 95 % CI [−0.23; 0.195], I2 = 0 %, 84 participants) and probably results in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.035, 95 % CI [−0.13; 0.199], I2 = 0 %, 137 participants).
For the domain Memory, subclass Verbal and Visual Memory RF-EMF exposure probably results in little to no difference in speed and does not reduce speed (Hedges’s g 0.042, 95 % CI [−0.15; 0.23], I2 = 0 %, 102 participants); it may result in little to no difference in accuracy (Hedges’s g −0.087, 95 % CI [−0.38; 0.20], I2 = 85 %, 625 participants).
For the domain Verbal Functions and Language Skills, subclass Verbal Expression, a meta-analysis was not possible because one of the two included studies did not provide numerical values. Results of both studies did not indicate statistically significant effects of RF-EMF exposure on both speed and accuracy.
For the domain Construction and Motor Performance, subclass Motor Skills RF-EMF exposure may reduce speed, but the evidence is very uncertain (Hedges’s g −0.919, 95 % CI [−3.09; 1.26], I2 = 96 %, 42 participants); it probably results in little to no difference in accuracy and does not reduce accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.228, 95 % CI [−0.01; 0.46], I2 = 0 %, 109 participants).
For the domain Concept Formation and Reasoning, subclass Reasoning RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g 0.010, 95 % CI [−0.11; 0.13], I2 = 0 %, 263 participants) and probably results in little to no difference in accuracy and does not reduce accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.051, 95 % CI [−0.14; 0.25], I2 = 0 %, 100 participants).
For the domain Concept Formation and Reasoning, subclass Mathematical Procedures RF-EMF exposure results in little to no difference in speed (Hedges’s g 0.033, 95 % CI [−0.12; 0.18], I2 = 0 %, 168 participants) and may result in little to no difference in accuracy but probably does not reduce accuracy (Hedges’s g 0.232, 95 % CI [−0.12; +0.59], I2 = 86 %, 253 participants).
For the domain Executive Functions there were no studies.
Discussion
Overall, the results from all domains and subclasses across their speed- and accuracy-related outcome measures according to GRADE provide high to low certainty of evidence that short-term RF-EMF exposure does not reduce cognitive performance in human experimental studies. For 16 out of 35 subdomains some uncertainty remains, because of limitations in the study quality, inconsistency in the results or imprecision of the combined effect size estimate. Future research should focus on construction and motor performance, elderly, and consideration of both sexes.
Other
This review was partially funded by the WHO radioprotection programme.
The protocol for this review was registered in Prospero reg. no. CRD42021236168 and published in Environment International (Pophof et al. 2021).
期刊介绍：
Environmental Health publishes manuscripts focusing on critical aspects of environmental and occupational medicine, including studies in toxicology and epidemiology, to illuminate the human health implications of exposure to environmental hazards. The journal adopts an open-access model and practices open peer review.
It caters to scientists and practitioners across all environmental science domains, directly or indirectly impacting human health and well-being. With a commitment to enhancing the prevention of environmentally-related health risks, Environmental Health serves as a public health journal for the community and scientists engaged in matters of public health significance concerning the environment.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
